Board to decide bus beheader's fate

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

I can't see how they can put any kind of specific odds on his chances to re-offend.

Neither can I, but then I realize I'm not a psychiatrist.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by henriksedin33

Attempting to quantify this is an absolute JOKE and I find it hard to put ANY faith in a doctor who attempts to do so. Is he basing this off the huge sample size of schizo's who have beheaded and eaten people who they thought were aliens? Is schizophrenia a "yes" or "no", with no varying degrees of severity or other contributing factors at play? Because from his estimate it would seem to be a "one size fits all" diagnosis...

From what i've read it was based on how he was responding to treatment and not about a one size fits all diagnosis...

"The privileges being asked for... would not place the public at high risk," Kremer told the board. "He has done very well. He has been a robust responder. He understands if he were not to take his medication, he would experience a deterioration."

Kremer and another psychiatrist described Li as a model patient who has had no incidents with staff or other patients and has shown great insight into what he's done. Li has improved his English and taken occupational therapy programs, including job training and meal preparation.

Crown attorney Susan Helenchilde did not oppose either of the recommendations, citing the expert reports of two doctors who have worked closely with Li since the killing.

http://www.brandonsun.com/breaking-n...055.html?thx=y

[Dion]

Vince Li speaks for the first time

http://winnipeg.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...b=WinnipegHome

[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Neither can I, but then I realize I'm not a psychiatrist.

Funny your penchant for soy lattes and always going on about your feelings could have fooled me.

Even if you were it's nothing but guesswork. I fail to see how they come up with 0.8. I think "very unlikely" is good enough for terminology.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I feel bad for the guy, it isn't his fault that he has schizophrenia and a psychotic break afterall and if he is responding to the therapy then part of me thinks that the best thing for him would be to work up towards him being released into the community with a Community Treatment Order that would ensure that he is actually taking his medication. The guy isn't a monster, he is just someone who has a chronic illness and is very very sick if he isn't taking his medication.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Aren't you a child care worker? If so, somehow I doubt you've dealt with many murderous, cannibalistic, schizophrenic adult patients.

you'd be suprised! all my murderous rapist clients grow up, some end up in Colony Farm Regional Pysch.

I'll give you the cannibal part though.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

Even if you were it's nothing but guesswork. I fail to see how they come up with 0.8.

How do you know this? I'm curious.

[moon]

I may have missed it but with the posts talking about ensuring he takes his meds how is that done and how is it done to ensure once he misses his meds they find him in time before he has another episode?

[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

How do you know this? I'm curious.

Because whether or not he'll re-offend is an unknown quantity, so trying to put a percentage on it is by definition guess work. Even if it's an educated guess.

All I said is that I think trying to give it a specific value is silly. "A very low chance" would suffice.

Seems like a really minor point to take issue with in the context of the conversation. Especially when my point really had nothing to do with their low estimate on the chance he'll re-offend. I said Even if there were a way to peg the chance at less than 1% I still think his crime should revoke his right to walk around.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

Because whether or not he'll re-offend is an unknown quantity, so trying to put a percentage on it is by definition guess work. Even if it's an educated guess.

All I said is that I think trying to give it a specific value is silly. "A very low chance" would suffice.

Seems like a really minor point to take issue with in the context of the conversation. Especially when my point really had nothing to do with their low estimate on the chance he'll re-offend. I said Even if there were a way to peg the chance at less than 1% I still think his crime should revoke his right to walk around.

Actually, what you said was "It's nothing but guesswork," and that's what I asked about. I was wondering how you know it to be guesswork without knowing any of the processes the doctors used to come to this conclusion, and, now that you mention it, how you know it to be silly. Now, obviously, whether he'll re-offend or not is an unknown quantity -- that's why they attached a percentage to it, and didn't say he will definitely not re-offend. That would have been a guess. What was used is something called objective probability; probability derived from analysis and evidence. If it were subjective probability, then, yes, you'd be right -- it would be a guess. But by definition, it's not.

In case you don't understand what I'm getting at it's this: none of us posting here (to my knowledge) are psychiatrists. Posting definitive statements as if we are is not conducive to intelligent discussion.

Also, I wasn't involved in your other conversation, so I'm not commenting on that.

[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

In case you don't understand what I'm getting at it's this: none of us posting here (to my knowledge) are psychiatrists. Posting definitive statements as if we are is not conducive to intelligent discussion.

Also, I wasn't involved in your other conversation, so I'm not commenting on that.

What's funny is the statement that made you involve yourself in my 'other' conversation was me pointing out that condensing his chances to re-offend to a two decimal point percentage point is not at all definitive. So if my observation about the lack of definitiveness sounded overly definitive I should probably apologize and admit I'm not a psychiatrist either.

Finished nit picking now?

[Nage Waza]

I think the point Captain_Obvious is making is very clear: How can any scientist put any percentage chance to a future event taking place that is not measurable from past events? 100% chance the sun rises tomorrow is easy to explain. The so called formula used to determine 0.8% chance of committing another crime should be clearly explained. I think those odds are too high and he should never be free. Are the odds the same in the first minute after taking his meds as they are 8 hours later?

An event taking place .8 out of 100 times are fairly good odds if you get the right payout.

Would you guys still be supporting his day releases if he killed multiple people?

I have many other questions:

What do you guys think about people that murder while drunk or on drugs and they are addicts? If alcoholism is a disease, do they too get let out in the same way? Are there any cases of a crime this violent that had similar results? Should addicted criminals be released once they are sober? Or do they get charged with standard jail sentences and then released?
Are pedophiles thought of in the same way?

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by moon

I may have missed it but with the posts talking about ensuring he takes his meds how is that done and how is it done to ensure once he misses his meds they find him in time before he has another episode?

For the 193399582832th time - he's NOT GETTING OUT PERMANENTLY ON HIS OWN, he's getting LIMITED, SUPERVISED (BY 2 OTHER PEOPLE!) TRIPS OFF-SITE.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Would you guys still be supporting his day releases if he killed multiple people?

Multiple people at the same time (there is only one documented event)? If he satisfied the medical board, yes, why wouldn't you?

I have many other questions:

What do you guys think about people that murder while drunk or on drugs and they are addicts?

In a formalistic sense, intoxication is only valid as a defence for offences that don't interfere with bodily integrity (as per the Criminal Code). It can however take away the specific intent required to commit something like murder, but with the sentencing provisions you could still see a substantial amount of jail time for a manslaughter conviction. Functionally, I agree with the current state of the law.

If alcoholism is a disease, do they too get let out in the same way?

See above.

Are there any cases of a crime this violent that had similar results?

www.canlii.org - have fun!

Should addicted criminals be released once they are sober?

If they have served their sentence, then of course they should be released. Indefinite detention violates their Charter rights as well as probably a dozen international treaties that Canada has ratified.

If you mean, after being taken into custody after the offence, there is procedure for that. I think you have to take it case-by-case, whether they should be put into a remand center or not. I don't know why you guys enjoy the 'one-size-fits-all' approach so much - the law doesn't work that way.

Or do they get charged with standard jail sentences and then released?

I don't understand the distinction you are drawing here.

Are pedophiles thought of in the same way?

Child abusers are put onto a registry and alerts are posted with regards to recently-released abusers who are considered a risk to reoffend. I don't understand how this is relevant here at all, unless you are comparing child molestors to schizophrenics? But that would just be ignorant of mental illness now, wouldn't it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Just to be clear, having gone through this with a few clients, escorted day parole is the first stage in him recieving unescorted day parole and then eventually full release, assuming that the day paroles go well (which they almost certainly will due to the level of supervision).

Assuming this follows the timescale of most of my ex clients (which the noteriaty of the case might change) Li will be out in a year to two years.

Right, because every case is obviously exactly the same and this case isn't at all different

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by VO #23

For the 193399582832th time - he's NOT GETTING OUT PERMANENTLY ON HIS OWN, he's getting LIMITED, SUPERVISED (BY 2 OTHER PEOPLE!) TRIPS OFF-SITE.

From talking to people about this no one seems to mind these supervised visits but the concern is how this leads towards him being on his own eventually. To me it sounds like the doctor is testing the waters by telling people the chances are 1 in a 100 (which is still too high IMHO) that he reoffends. And now you have his interview to make him seem like just any regular Joe that made a mistake.

Once he is fully released how do they keep tabs on him? Who is responsible if he kills someone else?

[Reaper]

Man, the slope sure is slippery in here.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by HOOT

From talking to people about this no one seems to mind these supervised visits but the concern is how this leads towards him being on his own eventually. To me it sounds like the doctor is testing the waters by telling people the chances are 1 in a 100 (which is still too high IMHO) that he reoffends. And now you have his interview to make him seem like just any regular Joe that made a mistake.

Once he is fully released how do they keep tabs on him? Who is responsible if he kills someone else?

His 30 minute escorts into the community and supervised walks around the grounds of the hospital are in response to how he was responding to treatment. They haven't said, but it could be they are working towards his full release back into the community.

As for the interview his respones to questions don't surprise me. Medication and treatment can help schizophrenics understand what thier disease is about and in Li's case, a reason for why he comitted that henious act. That and it helps to end the psycotic episodes and the voices he was constantly hearing. He seems to be remorseful for what he did and doesn't expect his life will ever be normal again.

The full unescorted release part, if it happens, scares the hell out of me. On one hand I think that if he stays on his meds and keeps up with his treatment he won't be a threat to society. It's the making sure that he takes his meds part that worries me. He can say he understands he has to take his meds and such but the realty is that many schizophrenics will go off thier meds when they are feeling better. The psycotic episode that lead to the beheading will return.

If we are going to keep him in a hospital setting ( I hope we do) for the rest of his life, i'd have no problems with him being escorted and supervised in the community where he goes to a day job and returns to the hospital at night.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Lets be real, He's gonna say and do what he needs to be given a full release. Its after that point that concerns the hell out of everyone. If anyone of us learned Vince Li was moving next door we'd be out of the neighborhood in a heartbeat. Saying there's a 0.8% he might relapse is truly frightening, since for 99% of the population there's a 0.000000000000000000000000001% chance they would do what he did, mental illness or not. I think he needs to be supervised for life.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by VO #23

Child abusers are put onto a registry and alerts are posted with regards to recently-released abusers who are considered a risk to reoffend. I don't understand how this is relevant here at all, unless you are comparing child molestors to schizophrenics? But that would just be ignorant of mental illness now, wouldn't it.

Wow, you almost made it through a complete post without insulting someone. You are getting better.

I am absolutely making a point that human sexuality exists within a very broad range. Some people are straight, some gay, bi, etc. A range that we are just barely figuring out, along with assorted fetishes. Can someone alter their sexuality? Of course not, yet we keep letting offenders out of jails and many commit more crimes. My point is clear - the system is failing us, these people need to stay locked up for good.

Someone that murders and eats someone should as well.

Another thing I keep forgetting to ask, I keep reading that this guy will have escorted day passes. Who pays for that?